The payment is part of thier employment contact.. What is wrong with that?They signed the contract agreeing to stay on while the company was going under instead of going to look for another job.Zoh my god, the company is fulfilling the contract they made with these employees...

factoryconnection:I was rebutted in a discussion on this topic that pointing out:1. The management guaranteeing raises/bonuses2. The debt burden added by the investment firm3. The poor product planning that results in an inability to sell fatty snacks to a nation with 100M obese people4. The union was faulted for punting on an 8% reduction in pay, but it was actually a position taken to protect their pensions which is sorta their role

... all make me an "Obamanation." This is after I characterized the whole collapse, knowing that union pension obligations were another huge chunk of Hostess' debt burden as a "team effort."

What am I missing that makes this exclusively the fault of the workers' unions?

It's not the fault of the unions, exclusively or otherswise. Hostess was going under, and they're using the union as a scapegoat.

Dr Dreidel:how the hell is it legal for them to compensate themselves after the company has basically gone tits-up? This shouldn't even be in front of a judge, it should just be flat illegal. Put the rest of the liquidity in the company that isn't going to paying the SALARIES of employees (management too, I guess) after everything's rolled up into the pension fund, or donate it to charity.

// and people wonder why the CEO class is reviled more and more every day// to say nothing of the Union of 99 CEOs (which is a larf in itself) that not even the GOP wants to give the time of day

^^^ THIS

It's an awesome deal, really. It doesn't matter how the company performs at all, they still get their damned bonus..... Nothin' but a bunch of overpaid weathermen if you ask me..........

Click Click D'oh:Uh... the bonuses are to retain management members who will be involved in the liquidation process, and who would likely jump ship otherwise. Farkers do realize that qualified executives would flee Hostess without retention bonuses right? Well, that actually could explain a lot around Fark if the average Farker would stay with a dieing company instead of seeking alternative employment...

If they needed incentives to keep high-level managers on to help close down the company, I really can't see a problem with this and predict the judge most likely won't either. From other companies that I am aware of that have liquidated, as long as they can justify the costs and no one did anything illegal or individually caused the problem, the courts allow it.

factoryconnection:I was rebutted in a discussion on this topic that pointing out:1. The management guaranteeing raises/bonuses2. The debt burden added by the investment firm3. The poor product planning that results in an inability to sell fatty snacks to a nation with 100M obese people4. The union was faulted for punting on an 8% reduction in pay, but it was actually a position taken to protect their pensions which is sorta their role

... all make me an "Obamanation." This is after I characterized the whole collapse, knowing that union pension obligations were another huge chunk of Hostess' debt burden as a "team effort."

What am I missing that makes this exclusively the fault of the workers' unions?

Republicans and Fox News claim it's exclusively the fault of the workers' unions, so it must be true!

It goes this way.. employee and employee contracts that are legal are honored prior to paying any creditors during a bankrupcy proceeding. The CEO and executives are technically employees of the company and their bonuses are usually built into their employment contract... it sucks.

$1.8 million split between what nineteen people in top management for a company that takes in nearly $3 billion in revenues? Many of these execs only make $1 salary and rely on bonuses and stock options for payment. Obviously it was the $1.8 million in bonuses and not the $700 million a year being paid out to retired people for pension and health benefits. That is $700 million in costs to people who are no longer producing for your company. On top of that you gotta pay all the bills as well as salary. I guess if they gave that money back they could write a check to all the employees for $100.

raerae1980:That is BS. Borders Execs tried persuading the judge in our bankruptcy to approve their bonuses. Judge said no. What are the grounds for allowing these bonuses for Hostess execs to be approved?

Oh that's easy, if you don;t bribe the execs with extra money, they quit and find other jobs and we NEED them to shut down the company properly. Seriously, they say that to judges all the time with a straight face. I've seen a varaint on it in nearly every Chapter 11 case I've ever worked. The call them "Retention bonuses" (as if retaining a job when everybody else is losing theirs isn;t enough of a bonus)

. It's kinda funny, but all the time we hear execs at failing companies echo the same arguments they call the Unions "greedy" for making. The idea that people need to be properly compensated for theier labors and financially rewarded for their loyalty is accepted as gospel in most corporate boardrooms-so long as it applies only to those occupying the exeutive suites. For anyone else, the feeling is that they should be greatful to even GET a paycheck and should stop whining about it getting smaller.

Just after AIG nearly collpsed the American economy because of its stunning incompetence, the execs were bitterly complaining to the Treasury department via e-mail that if Treasury insisted on putting restrictions on the bonuses they could pay senior executives with the $80 BILLION in emergency loan money Treasury was giving them, it would simply CRIPPLE the company because all thier "Top Talent" would simply leave for other jobs. As if there WERE other jobs avaialble right then in a financial secotr in which investment banks were falling like dominoes, and as if anyone would (or should) hire someone with the stink of AIG's FAIL still lingering on them.

To Treasury's credit, the main deal went down in January 2009 and the incoming Treasury team led by Giethner took the lead in those negotiations and stuck to their guns on that one.

No, but I have to wonder that if the Baker's Union took the deal and perhaps pushed the Teamsters to take a similar deal (stake in the company and seats on the board) if they couldn't have blocked these bonuses.

Really though, the board and stockholders are to blame for rewarding poor management with bonuses. The union does have some culpability in Hostess' demise...but poor leadership at the top is the root cause.

One of the strange disconnects with business and markets is between metrics and results. Often contracts are signed where bonuses are contingent upon specific metrics. The belief is that a given metric indicates some measure of success, such as sales numbers, net profit, customer retention, etc, when success in the marketplace is not simply a list of unassociated numbers in specific columns.

All too often, this codified myopic focus on a number of individual factors means that managers are in line for massive bonuses even when the company is falling to pieces, simply because that's what the board and the company thought would drive success and were wrong.

Providing bonuses for the same execs that drove them to bankruptcy seems insane, but they're being graded on how well they liquidate the company. If they do a good job, the owners get paid more, so it's worth it to incentivise whomever is doing the selling.

pkellmey:If they needed incentives to keep high-level managers on to help close down the company, I really can't see a problem with this and predict the judge most likely won't either. From other companies that I am aware of that have liquidated, as long as they can justify the costs and no one did anything illegal or individually caused the problem, the courts allow it.

NO! Everyone who doesn't have Ding Dong fudge on his coveralls should be strung up by his Twinkie and pelted with SnoBalls until he Yodels!

or what you said. Come to think of it, what you said is better. Faux outrage is too hard.

Let's try to put this in perspective....if you are a regular sort-of-joe (like myself) when you hear these salary/bonus numbers - you think 'WHAT!? ' So let's scale it down.

Say I'm the manager of a Mom & Pop restaurant that's just entered into bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a legal status, it doesn't exactly mean they don't have any money. They've shut down two of the three locations, but they want to keep one operating to keep the brand alive and bring in buyers. They also need some staff to handle details of the sale, and possibly, to help train new workers, once someone buys the restaurant and the brand.

Sure, it sucks that some people lost their jobs. And sure, as a manager, I had more responsibilities and earned more than my subordinates....but (right or wrong), I have a valuable skillset and experience - I can go somewhere else and get a job as a restaurant manager.

Why would I keep going to work if I weren't getting paid?I certainly wouldn't.

Most people here wouldn't.

Bankruptcy or not, lay-offs or not, I'm not showing up to a job unless I'm getting paid. That was true when I made minimum wage, and it would be true if I were making seven figures. Whatever job I have, it's on-par with other jobs I could get.

A lot of people are going to say, 'Sure Fark_Guy_Rob - but we're talking about BONUSES here! Not pay-checks' and I can sort of appreciate that. The thing is, when you reach a certain level or work in certain fields, compensation is largely bonus driven. I started working in the financial industry and I was surprised to learn my new job would have a contract that entitles me to a bonus. It will range from $X to $3X - and yes, it's kind of silly to call it a 'bonus' when I'm contractually obligated to receive a minimum amount. I'm still just a low-earning nobody, but people like my boss's boss earn the majority of their compensation in the form of a bonus.

If you were getting paid 10k in cash and 40k in bonuses - would you continue to work at 10k for six months while you handle the bankruptcy procedures for your restaurant - or would you just leave and get a new job that pays 10k in cash and....35k in bonuses (5k less because the economy is tough...)

But place yourself in those striking employees' shoes. I cannot for the life of me figure out why they would strike and become jobless at the end. I would vote to keep working and look for another job with at least something coming in. Unemployment can't be as much as the reduced pay rate, can it?

Grand_Moff_Joseph:The Vulture Capitalists get their pound of flesh, the executives get their golden parachutes, and the employees get shafted big time.

That's the Bain American Way!

Bain was just the poster child for stufff that happenes everyday on Wall Street these days. You notice when they "reformed" the bankruptcy code in 2005 to make it harder for you, personally to wipe out things like massive credit card debt, they did absolutely nothing to reform Chapter 11 and reign in the looting of failing companies that execs routinely engage in?

here's what I don't get. This is AMERICA. Why were these companies not raking in money hand over fist for selling processed sugars packaged with food-like synthetic chemical compounds designed to mimic the taste and texture of frosting, cream filling, and cake? WE'RE A NATION OF FAT PEOPLE!

ya we get it, you're bitter because the best job you could muster involves saying "would you like fries with that?" it's not the rest of the worlds problem you didn't play your cards right or get a decent education, maybe you should've taken a real course instead of getting a degree in literature or arts.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:raerae1980: That is BS. Borders Execs tried persuading the judge in our bankruptcy to approve their bonuses. Judge said no. What are the grounds for allowing these bonuses for Hostess execs to be approved?

The grounds are: That's how today's hedge fund/vulture capital model works. Extract profit and bonuses at the expense of all else

This is the economic plan you farkers almost voted into the Presidency.Be proud, be stupid, be partisan!

They're not analysts. They're junior traders. While the analyst bonuses have cratered in the past five years, it has not been the case with traders. These guys' bosses get at least seven figures as a bonus.

Click Click D'oh:Uh... the bonuses are to retain management members who will be involved in the liquidation process, and who would likely jump ship otherwise. Farkers do realize that qualified executives would flee Hostess without retention bonuses right? Well, that actually could explain a lot around Fark if the average Farker would stay with a dieing company instead of seeking alternative employment...

1. There are no qualified executives at Hostess. This is well-established.2. You don't need huge bonuses to retain executives. There is what is called 'salary'.3. You don't need former executives to liquidate a company.

They're not analysts. They're junior traders. While the analyst bonuses have cratered in the past five years, it has not been the case with traders. These guys' bosses get at least seven figures as a bonus.

If I invested there, I'd worry that my handling fees were too high if you're paying 22 year olds a half-mil a year to set a blue-chip fund on cruise control.